The book was useful for me to develop my satanic stance and I never read it legalistic! It means - I accept useful thoughts.

When we are beginners of some philosophy we accept everything or reject everything. When my children were young I gave nuts with shells, they putted them in mouth without thinking... and they thought – nuts are bad and nothing good is there. They even told their friends that nuts are terrible and none can eat them… Now we have in Latvia hazelnut season. We go in wood and pick up nuts and before eating they crash nuts and get great core... They don’t think badly of hazelnuts. Satanism is individualistic philosophy. We can take from 'Satanic Scriptures' delicious core!

To The OP: The goal of a book review is to give a fair reading and analysis of the text. I still plan to review this book at a later date, but what I just read was pretty pitiful. Several posters tried to salvage it, but you continued to focus on matters of family privacy. I have read the book. It ain't in it. I'll scrutinize the text, but this is bullshit.

I never have read the Satanic Scriptures either. And for the same reason. It never interested me. Gilmore is like Anton's mini me. Just kinda goes around trying to look and sound like Anton. I flipped through it in a PDF file. And I saw nothing to hold my interest.

I'm reading the book now. I was just reading "The Fascism Question" and like other parts in the book so far, it made me want to set the thing on fire.

Yet again Gilmore lets me know that he doesn't want to be "Required to pay for wastrels who want a free ride". He calls the "Satanic elite" a "political pipedream". He mentions the Founding Fathers of America and how they "did not grant freedom to everyone" mentioning the slaves. He says more about democratic "mob rule" being "intolerable", then says "We Satanists" have the same opinion of the masses as the "Founding Fathers". He says all this on the same page as he says the Church of Satan is "Not Political".

Then I was reading all the posts in this thread and FUCK! He will revoke your red card for being on a message board? I'm hardly political but something is very wrong here.

I APPRECIATE the work he's put into making Anton LaVey's ideas available, and represented in mainstream media. I do appreciate that there IS an organization promoting Satanism in a major way so people have more access to it. Peter Gilmore does do good work which is why I was so interested in his ideas. I will say this book represents his ideas well.

Fascism is a political theory and praxis. It is a way of ordering government and society. It cannot logically apply to private organizations (unless they specifically state this as an exoteric goal). Gilmore expresses what I would describe as a libertarian viewpoint of government and society. The rules for association and disassociation from a private organization are given a lot of latitude (under both his views and even current law for the most part). There are plenty of reasons to not associate with this specific organization. Calling them "fascists" is simply inaccurate. They are not a political organization. Their members can be of any political persuasion. Gilmore seems to admonish his members not to fall into "political pipedreams" ie he doesn't see a satanic vanguard coming to power.

Only insofar as those "Satanic elite" are envisioned to be the masters of political workings.

Originally Posted By: aerial_dc

Yet again Gilmore lets me know that he doesn't want to be "Required to pay for wastrels who want a free ride".

Oh noes! The horror! The horror!

Originally Posted By: aerial_dc

He mentions the Founding Fathers of America and how they "did not grant freedom to everyone" mentioning the slaves. He says more about democratic "mob rule" being "intolerable", then says "We Satanists" have the same opinion of the masses as the "Founding Fathers".

The general gist is that both the Founding Fathers and Satanists shared a "low opinion of the masses," as represented by a desire for a Republic over a direct democracy. This isn't endorsing slavery, just elitism.

The principle behind a Republic was "majority rule with minority rights protected." Democracy cuts minority rights straight out of the equation. The lowest common denominator reflexively desires to destroy the different. One who openly identifies as Satanist is likely to wish to avoid the lynch mob by enacting a political system that respected individual rights.

In short,

Originally Posted By: Gilmore

So we come ‘round at last to that question: “Is Satanism fascism?” The answer depends upon your definition of that term. If fascism is understood to be the totalitarian system of government enslaving its subjects to serve the state in drab conformity, then the answer is a resounding “NO!” However, if fascism is merely a loose epithet tossed at those who do uphold standards for excellence in human achievement in all arenas of endeavor, then we’ll wear THAT as a badge of honor. We, who embrace Satan as our emblem, don’t need no stinking good guy badges!

I'm not seeing a problem. I'm not exactly Gilmore's biggest fan, but I don't take umbrage at that.

XiaoGui17,The writings of Peter Gilmore are too elitist for my taste. His opinions give me the impression that he's never experienced poverty, which is fine, except that when he mentions it he appears sheltered. It actually does seem as though he feels literal slaves deserve there place in life(as I interpret his writings) and I don't agree at all. If it's true he would ban a CoS member for being on this website, that's to elitist for me as well. I also feel this goes against LaVey's ideas about Satanists being nonconformists.

I'm not here to trash Peter Gilmore though, or talk about Politics. I was simply responding to the original topic. I've already voiced my opinion on this and don't wish to go on about it.

Elitism is part of the gig as far as LaVeyan Satanism goes. There really is no way around it. I can't say I know (or care) what the author's background is. He did put in some effort to get to where he wanted to be. He holds advanced degrees in music composition and theory from NYU. I suppose this is how I would relate to him. The section on music is fantastic. I saw nothing in the text to suggest an actual approval of slavery. This would also be inconsistent with the overall social and political views being proffered. There are plenty of reasons not to join this organization. They are not related to this unusual textual interpretation.